Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Holifield v. Campbell
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01A01-9806-CH-00291
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; October 21, 1998; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Charles Holifield, a prisoner, has appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the Commissioner of Correction and Corrections Corporation of America, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. The appeal concerns a 'Complaint for Declaratory Judgment' filed under the Administrative Procedures Act and related statutes. Holifield, alongside another plaintiff who did not appeal, alleged issues related to their incarceration in a facility run by Corrections Corporation of America. The complaint included various exhibits, such as grievances and directives pertaining to furlough policies. The trial court dismissed the claims against Corrections Corporation of America, determining that the complaint did not state a valid claim for relief. Holifield's motion for judicial notice clarified that they sought a declaratory order regarding eligibility for furlough consideration, not a right to furlough itself. The court upheld the dismissal, confirming that the plaintiffs failed to establish a claim for which relief could be granted. The appellate court modified, affirmed, and remanded the trial court's decision. Plaintiffs are allowed to proceed as paupers, but this status does not exempt them from trial court costs, which are assessed against them. The judgment has been modified to reflect that all trial costs will be borne by the plaintiffs. Holifield raises three issues for review: 1. The Chancery Court's dismissal of his petition under the Administrative Procedures Act and Declaratory Judgment Act regarding Tennessee Code Annotated (T.C.A.) 41-21-227 and its alleged failure to create a liberty interest in furlough eligibility. 2. The dismissal of Corrections Corporation of America from the lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act. 3. The dismissal of the case concerning Commissioner of Corrections Donal Campbell's actions in Quo Warranto, which Holifield claims violates the separation of powers clause in the Tennessee Constitution. Under T.C.A. 41-21-227, the Department of Correction is authorized to grant furloughs to inmates under specific conditions, but does not create a constitutional liberty interest in receiving a furlough. The court emphasizes that a legitimate entitlement must exist for an enforceable liberty interest, which is not the case here. The discretion to grant furloughs lies with the department, and inmates do not have a right to demand a furlough. The trial court's judgment has been modified regarding costs but is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.